Hunting 'has conservation role'
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Joined
·
510 Posts
It really is sad that the only value we place on animals is the value that comes from killing it. Hunters like to pretend they are doing a big favour for the animals by hunting them. But if they really cared about animals they wouldn't slaughter them; they would find the value in photographing them for example.
But the reality is animals in Africa (for example) can be saved through eco-tourism and the like. That is the way to sustain the animal population in Africa.
I cannot fathom the type of person that would want to shoot an elephant. That is a person who is going to hell.
But the reality is animals in Africa (for example) can be saved through eco-tourism and the like. That is the way to sustain the animal population in Africa.
I cannot fathom the type of person that would want to shoot an elephant. That is a person who is going to hell.
Joined
·
8,130 Posts
While you may not like it, in the US, hunters have been a powerful source for conservation.
The funding for wildlife officials comes, in part, from hunting and fishing licenses.
While I dislike certain hunters and hunting subcultures, I'm going to choose my battles wisely. I'd rather spend my energies ranting on factory farming.
The funding for wildlife officials comes, in part, from hunting and fishing licenses.
While I dislike certain hunters and hunting subcultures, I'm going to choose my battles wisely. I'd rather spend my energies ranting on factory farming.
Joined
·
510 Posts
Quote:
And it's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing it because they want to ensure an abundant supply of animals to kill and the space to do it in.
I see what you're saying but it doesn't disprove my post.Originally Posted by das_nut
While you may not like it, in the US, hunters have been a powerful source for conservation.
The funding for wildlife officials comes, in part, from hunting and fishing licenses.
While I dislike certain hunters and hunting subcultures, I'm going to choose my battles wisely. I'd rather spend my energies ranting on factory farming.
And it's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing it because they want to ensure an abundant supply of animals to kill and the space to do it in.
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Focusing on factory farming also seems kinda welfarist to me.
Personally, I don't find there's a need to decide where to put one's energy.Originally Posted by das_nut
While I dislike certain hunters and hunting subcultures, I'm going to choose my battles wisely. I'd rather spend my energies ranting on factory farming.
Focusing on factory farming also seems kinda welfarist to me.
Joined
·
8,130 Posts
Quote:
Quote:
Heh, my reasons for conservation are somewhat self-centered. I want pretty places to enjoy.Originally Posted by Christopher Jon
And it's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing it because they want to ensure an abundant supply of animals to kill and the space to do it in.
Quote:
Please explain.Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Focusing on factory farming also seems kinda welfarist to me.
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Well focusing only on factory farming - lest one do something really "out there", like imply that non-humans' moral status shouldn't be reduced to that of shooting targets - doesn't at least in practice separate a conservative AW view from an AR one.Originally Posted by das_nut
Please explain.
So, when you say these values won't help animals, are you saying they won't help individual animals? That is, by preserving an animal's habitat, that individual animal is not being helped by having her home preserved?
I guess I'm just not sure how it is animals "won't be helped" by conservation.
I guess I'm just not sure how it is animals "won't be helped" by conservation.
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
I'm saying that it won't have any long term effect on the way we see other species. The overwhelmingly greatest non-human problem has to do with the use of animals in agriculture, experimentation, entertainment and as "pets". Wild animals certainly suffer from our wasteful lifestyle, and habitats are destroyed, and so on, but that's a minor concern compared to the billions and billions of animals tortured and killed in captivity each day. To address the latter problem we would have to change our moral views on animals, and conservation doesn't seem to me to contribute to that goal. On the contrary, I find it distressing that people can be so concerned about pandas or some wild animals on the verge of extinction when the greatest tragedy happens on their dinner tables.Originally Posted by Ludi
So, when you say these values won't help animals, are you saying they won't help individual animals? That is, by preserving an animal's habitat, that individual animal is not being helped by having her home preserved?
I guess I'm just not sure how it is animals "won't be helped" by conservation.
It may be just as painful for the orangutan to die because her home was burned down and replanted to oil palm as it is for her to die in a zoo. The despair she feels may be just as intense in both cases. I don't know that we can know one way or the other. Why do you feel the need to choose between wild animals and domestic animals, when they all need our concern?
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
I agree that living in a zoo and losing habitat may cause similar amounts of suffering. But I challenge anyone to find a life in the wild that can compare to that of a veal calf or a factory farm chicken or a vivisected rhesus monkey.
I don't think we have to choose between wild animals and animals in captivity. The most important thing to do to wild animals, I think, is minimizing consumption, buying local probably organic things, conserving energy etc. This doesn't take away from eating a vegan diet or doing vegan advocacy.
But if we were to have to choose between activism concerned with wild species, and vegan advocacy, I think the latter should be our priority. This is because, whereas conservation efforts don't lead to veganism, veganism does lead to, if not more concern for the environment, then at least a more "fertile soil" to plant environmental messages in.
I don't think we have to choose between wild animals and animals in captivity. The most important thing to do to wild animals, I think, is minimizing consumption, buying local probably organic things, conserving energy etc. This doesn't take away from eating a vegan diet or doing vegan advocacy.
But if we were to have to choose between activism concerned with wild species, and vegan advocacy, I think the latter should be our priority. This is because, whereas conservation efforts don't lead to veganism, veganism does lead to, if not more concern for the environment, then at least a more "fertile soil" to plant environmental messages in.
What you say makes sense, sevenseas. If people were really concerned about the Earth's life systems and animals, they would be against factory farming. I think many people just never make the connection between their eating habits (and other life choices) and the big picture. I think to a degree, "conservation" is always about someplace "out there" you know, the "environment," not right here in our own lives, on our own plates. And that's where I think conservation and environmentalism fail.
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
I don't know if I'll able to communicate this properly, but:
the reason why I find meat-eaters' conservationism distressing is also that I think there is this attitude that wild animals are somehow much more valuable than chickens, cows etc. I think this has to do with the fact that wild animals are free, untamed and independent, out of our reach, so we appreciate them. Whereas our complete subjection of cows, pigs and chickens to our needs, and our breeding of them into mere machines has also lead to seeing them as worthless. We value wild animals because they're "natural" and wild; whereas we "disvalue" cows, pigs and chickens because they are "unnatural" and captive.
I find this an ultimate kind of injustice: it is not only that we exploit animals because we don't value them, but our exploitation of animals has caused them to lose their moral value (in our minds).
Exactly.Originally Posted by Ludi
I think to a degree, "conservation" is always about someplace "out there" you know, the "environment," not right here in our own lives, on our own plates.
I don't know if I'll able to communicate this properly, but:
the reason why I find meat-eaters' conservationism distressing is also that I think there is this attitude that wild animals are somehow much more valuable than chickens, cows etc. I think this has to do with the fact that wild animals are free, untamed and independent, out of our reach, so we appreciate them. Whereas our complete subjection of cows, pigs and chickens to our needs, and our breeding of them into mere machines has also lead to seeing them as worthless. We value wild animals because they're "natural" and wild; whereas we "disvalue" cows, pigs and chickens because they are "unnatural" and captive.
I find this an ultimate kind of injustice: it is not only that we exploit animals because we don't value them, but our exploitation of animals has caused them to lose their moral value (in our minds).
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Join the discussion
